As the media mouthpiece for the conservative Catholic bishops, Fox News has provided them with full support for their opposition to the HHS birth control mandate. In promoting the bishop's argument, Fox has also advanced the Catholic right's myth that Obama hates Catholics and is waging a "holy war" against them. (Fox does love its martyrs!) And while the Catholic right hates the President, they haven't warmed up to the new pope whose commie views on social justice don't quite coincide with the Catholic right's obsession with abortion, marriage equality, and screwing the poor. Thus, today's meeting between the President and Pope Francis presents, for Fox, a bit of a conundrum as it would appear that the Pope didn't excoriate Obama for his sinful ways. But leave it to Megyn Kelly to distort what appears to have been an amicable and enlightened discussion and turn it into a bash Obamafest. And "truth detector" Kelly, once again, showed us that she is anything but!
Kelly began her spin immediately. After reporting that Pres. Obama had his first meeting with Pope Francis she framed the message; i.e. the President was lying about what was said during the meeting: "A tale of two meetings with two very different versions of what the two leaders discussed." She said that the President "claimed" that the "meeting was largely focused on income inequality" while a Vatican statement, summarizing the meeting (she almost shouted) "didn't mention that at all" but rather "focused on life and religious freedom." She asked "why is that."
Kelly, if not lying is spinning. According to the Murdoch owned Wall Street Journal, the President "said that over the course of 52 minutes in the papal library the two discussed income inequality, immigration overhauls and international conflicts, including in the Middle East." Part of Obama's reaction to the meeting was quoted on CNN. The term "income inequality" was not used. Again, Obama said that a number of topics were discussed. So "largely focused on income inequality" - not so much. Her characterization of the Vatican statement as "focused on life and religious freedom" is also incorrect as the statement also addresses "conscientious objection," "immigration reform," and "the common commitment to the eradication of trafficking of human persons in the world."
Kelly said "how bizarre" to her guest, "devout Roman Catholic" and failed presidential candidate Rick Santorum. She added "it's like they weren't at the same meeting." Santorum asserted that the Vatican read out was more correct. She wanted to know what Obama's motive was in visiting with the Pope. Santorum said that the Pope is popular because of his "authenticity" and other attributes. He didn't mention Francis' concern for social justice. He speculated that Obama is hoping that the Pope's popularity will rub off on him.
Kelly asked "does that work" and cleverly worked in a reference to the poor, persecuted "Little Sisters of the Poor" whose case against the HHS mandate, Kelly (and Fox) has openly supported: "We've got news stories here in the United States showing the Little Sisters of the Poor who don't want their insurer to have to cover birth control for their employees...and the President's legal team is court challenging them."
Kelly is spinning - The nuns are refusing to sign the paper which gives them their religious exemption to the mandate. Their insurance provider, the Christian Brothers, is already exempt and won't be providing birth control. The administration is merely responding to their court case.
She wanted to know if the visit is a "distraction" from offenses to Catholics. Santorum reiterated the alleged different takes on the meeting and accused Obama of "wanting to use his spin machine to dominate the meeting." He said that the Pope hasn't changed any Church dogma and wants to focus on faith. He accused Obama of wanting validation for his views on social justice and the Vatican "was having none of it."
There were indeed two meetings - the real one and the one spun by Megyn Kelly.
Although Francis is in many ways a traditionalist on subjects like women in the clergy, reproductive rights and the like, he’s not letting that get in the way of doing what has to be done, in the areas where something can be done. The Republicans in the American Congress should follow his example, IMO.